- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ha ha. Proof that you are unreasonable and not rational regarding this topic.
Your bias is the biggest contributor to your conclusions.Quote (Stu @ April 27 2009,00:19) And as dull as christianity itself. Stuart
What does that say about you Stu? You spend quite a bit of time with Christians.
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2009,11:51) Ha ha. Proof that you are unreasonable and not rational regarding this topic.
Your bias is the biggest contributor to your conclusions.
My conclusion is based on the evidence you presented.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2009,14:48) Quote (Stu @ April 27 2009,00:19) And as dull as christianity itself. Stuart
What does that say about you Stu? You spend quite a bit of time with Christians.
Christianity is dull. Its fundamentalist adherents are endlessly fascinating.Stuart
Do you put me in the fascinating category?
BTW, being a glorified ape that crawled out of a puddle isn't exactly inspiring either.
Notice how your rants are not scientific Stu.
They are nothing but pure bias.
Do you think maybe there is even the slight possibility that your beliefs are swayed by your bias more so than by logic and scientific thinking?
Quote BTW, being a glorified ape that crawled out of a puddle isn't exactly inspiring either. I’m sorry you had to suffer that indignity. What church were you attending when it happened?
Stuart
I was an atheist for half my life. It was a boring belief. I actually tend to find 'nothing' quite boring. You seem to be quite excited about it by giving 'nothing' the glory for everything. Can't see what is so fascinating about nothing apart from it being the lack of anything interesting.
Quote (t8 @ April 28 2009,18:57) I was an atheist for half my life. It was a boring belief. I actually tend to find 'nothing' quite boring. You seem to be quite excited about it by giving 'nothing' the glory for everything. Can't see what is so fascinating about nothing apart from it being the lack of anything interesting.
“Can't see” would seem to explain most of your post.Atheism consists of only one idea, and if you were to try and base your life around the opposite of what christians believe I agree it would be dull. Were you sitting around thinking about “not god” all the time?
We know you went on a shopping expedition for a religion, and by unbelievable sheer luck hit upon the one practised by the majority of the religionists in the country in which you live. What were the chances?
I can't see what is satisfying about consigning the most interesting puzzles about the universe to 'goddidit'. Still, it is what the anti-intellectual, misogynistic bigot Paul expects of his ostriches, uh I mean religious deludees.
Stuart
Hey Stu.
I have a bag of nothings going cheap. NZ $500 exc GST. You can pay via PayPal or Credit Card. Your choice.
Quote (david @ May 03 2009,04:08) What is the multi-verse theory based on?
Good question. I should think t8 will not be explaining his enthusiasm for it.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 28 2009,19:21) “Can't see” would seem to explain most of your post.
People usually resort to quoting out of context when they desperate. I can't see what is fascinating about nothing is the context.So you can see nothing or what is fascinating about it? Wow I am impressed, but I hate to break up your party, but if you can see nothing, then it is really something.
I value common sense Stu.
david,
Multiverse theory/imagination is often used by scientists to explain away how something came from nothing by saying that the universe came from another universe. Of course they eventually have to face that question, how did something come from nothing, but they can buy some time I guess.
That aside, there is some good reasons for the theory.
One is that we don't exist on the only planet, solar system, or galaxy in our universe. So it could be fair to say “why do we think the universe is solitary”? Why is it UNI? Perhaps there are many universes in a bigger construct we could call a multiverse? Scripture talks of differing levels of the heavens after all.
So far our telescopes have shown us is the visible universe many billions of years back and a telescope being sent into space soon will show us images of the universe before the stars lit up. i.e., near the Big Bang itself. Can't wait. I hope it is not a big flop.
Our whole space time continuum makes it hard to know what was before that because our observations are based in this time space continuum's laws.
Another idea is that stuff that is sucked into a black hole is spat out a white hole in a creation process and that our Big Bang is the other end of a black hole in an associated universe. Similarly, if there are double galaxies or colliding galaxies, then why not a double, associated, parallel, or colliding alternate universe. Even electrons orbit in pairs with opposite spin.
All that said, I guess you have to ask the question, do we really comprehend the full extent of the universe in that it contains billions of galaxies, which contain billions of suns, of which most probably have planets? (Our current view.) Who are we to think that we understand the top layer of the physical universe? Perhaps it is so big that all we are explaining thus far is but an atom in a bigger construct?
Another idea that may support this theory is the world of the smallest things (Quantum). There we see weird things happen that we cannot explain. But if our universe was colliding with another one that had a differing set of rules, then we may just be observing those rules which makes no sense to the rules of the universe that we know.
I heard it explained like this. Imagine hitting a ball into the corner pocket of a pool table. It is heading straight for the pocket and hence you can make a prediction, then for some reason it changes direction suddenly and you are lost. If there was another set of rules from another universe interacting with our rules/laws, then that might explain the weirdness, although that is a little to convenient.
All said, it is more imagination than anything else at this stage. But I guess that man once thought the universe was the earth covered by a dome of sparkly lights. Back then, who knew that we were in only one galaxy of billions. So why should we stop at our current understanding of what the universe is?
Quote (t8 @ May 04 2009,13:20) Quote (Stu @ April 28 2009,19:21) “Can't see” would seem to explain most of your post.
People usually resort to quoting out of context when they desperate. I can't see what is fascinating about nothing is the context.So you can see nothing or what is fascinating about it? Wow I am impressed, but I hate to break up your party, but if you can see nothing, then it is really something.
I value common sense Stu.
I value models that explain the universe successfully t8.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 04 2009,14:00) david, Multiverse theory/imagination is often used by scientists to explain away how something came from nothing by saying that the universe came from another universe. Of course they eventually have to face that question, how did something come from nothing, but they can buy some time I guess.
That aside, there is some good reasons for the theory.
One is that we don't exist on the only planet, solar system, or galaxy in our universe. So it could be fair to say “why do we think the universe is solitary”? Why is it UNI? Perhaps there are many universes in a bigger construct we could call a multiverse? Scripture talks of differing levels of the heavens after all.
So far our telescopes have shown us is the visible universe many billions of years back and a telescope being sent into space soon will show us images of the universe before the stars lit up. i.e., near the Big Bang itself. Can't wait. I hope it is not a big flop.
Our whole space time continuum makes it hard to know what was before that because our observations are based in this time space continuum's laws.
Another idea is that stuff that is sucked into a black hole is spat out a white hole in a creation process and that our Big Bang is the other end of a black hole in an associated universe. Similarly, if there are double galaxies or colliding galaxies, then why not a double, associated, parallel, or colliding alternate universe. Even electrons orbit in pairs with opposite spin.
All that said, I guess you have to ask the question, do we really comprehend the full extent of the universe in that it contains billions of galaxies, which contain billions of suns, of which most probably have planets? (Our current view.) Who are we to think that we understand the top layer of the physical universe? Perhaps it is so big that all we are explaining thus far is but an atom in a bigger construct?
Another idea that may support this theory is the world of the smallest things (Quantum). There we see weird things happen that we cannot explain. But if our universe was colliding with another one that had a differing set of rules, then we may just be observing those rules which makes no sense to the rules of the universe that we know.
I heard it explained like this. Imagine hitting a ball into the corner pocket of a pool table. It is heading straight for the pocket and hence you can make a prediction, then for some reason it changes direction suddenly and you are lost. If there was another set of rules from another universe interacting with our rules/laws, then that might explain the weirdness, although that is a little to convenient.
All said, it is more imagination than anything else at this stage. But I guess that man once thought the universe was the earth covered by a dome of sparkly lights. Back then, who knew that we were in only one galaxy of billions. So why should we stop at our current understanding of what the universe is?
Far out. Nine paragraphs without mentioning Imaginary Friends, design or fools.Hats off to you.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 04 2009,18:54) I value models that explain the universe successfully t8. Stuart
And what?I am not saying that the universe is bigger than a compilation of galaxies. I am open to it and I am open to it not being the case. Either way it is mind boggling.
We haven't even seen into the dark period of the universe yet, so I await images from that time.
I don't care if there is a model or not. I am not saying it is true.
However, many a good discovery started as a hunch, so I remain open minded to any number of possibilities and I like to listen to what people think. That is how we learn after all. But being closed minded makes us arrogant and eventually foolish because you can't learn when you close yourself off to possibilities, especially if it turns out to be right.
Quote (Stu @ May 04 2009,18:57) Quote (t8 @ May 04 2009,14:00) david, Multiverse theory/imagination is often used by scientists to explain away how something came from nothing by saying that the universe came from another universe. Of course they eventually have to face that question, how did something come from nothing, but they can buy some time I guess.
That aside, there is some good reasons for the theory.
One is that we don't exist on the only planet, solar system, or galaxy in our universe. So it could be fair to say “why do we think the universe is solitary”? Why is it UNI? Perhaps there are many universes in a bigger construct we could call a multiverse? Scripture talks of differing levels of the heavens after all.
So far our telescopes have shown us is the visible universe many billions of years back and a telescope being sent into space soon will show us images of the universe before the stars lit up. i.e., near the Big Bang itself. Can't wait. I hope it is not a big flop.
Our whole space time continuum makes it hard to know what was before that because our observations are based in this time space continuum's laws.
Another idea is that stuff that is sucked into a black hole is spat out a white hole in a creation process and that our Big Bang is the other end of a black hole in an associated universe. Similarly, if there are double galaxies or colliding galaxies, then why not a double, associated, parallel, or colliding alternate universe. Even electrons orbit in pairs with opposite spin.
All that said, I guess you have to ask the question, do we really comprehend the full extent of the universe in that it contains billions of galaxies, which contain billions of suns, of which most probably have planets? (Our current view.) Who are we to think that we understand the top layer of the physical universe? Perhaps it is so big that all we are explaining thus far is but an atom in a bigger construct?
Another idea that may support this theory is the world of the smallest things (Quantum). There we see weird things happen that we cannot explain. But if our universe was colliding with another one that had a differing set of rules, then we may just be observing those rules which makes no sense to the rules of the universe that we know.
I heard it explained like this. Imagine hitting a ball into the corner pocket of a pool table. It is heading straight for the pocket and hence you can make a prediction, then for some reason it changes direction suddenly and you are lost. If there was another set of rules from another universe interacting with our rules/laws, then that might explain the weirdness, although that is a little to convenient.
All said, it is more imagination than anything else at this stage. But I guess that man once thought the universe was the earth covered by a dome of sparkly lights. Back then, who knew that we were in only one galaxy of billions. So why should we stop at our current understanding of what the universe is?
Far out. Nine paragraphs without mentioning Imaginary Friends, design or fools.Hats off to you.
Stuart
I will explain why.Because what I mentioned didn't go back to the first thing that ever happened.
So I didn't need to talk about the creator, rather creative processes and possible creative processes instead.
Not hard to see why now is it?
Would you prefer me to talk about the universe from a perspective of it's creative processes and laws, and not venture into what happened before the Big Bang? Coz if that is the case, then you are putting your head in the sand again Stu.
Oh, I better mention God. GOD, Creator, YHWH.
There you go.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
